Jump to content


This site uses cookies. By using this site, you agree to accept cookies, unless you've opted out. (US government web page with instructions to opt out: http://www.usa.gov/optout-instructions.shtml)

Political correctness and ballet


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#16 Mel Johnson

Mel Johnson

    Diamonds Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,311 posts

Posted 30 May 2002 - 06:09 PM

That could be "presbychoreophobia" (fear of classic dance) and thus Politically Correct because it's a mental illness. Wacko is SO in!;)

#17 Leigh Witchel

Leigh Witchel

    Editorial Advisor

  • Editorial Advisor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 30 May 2002 - 07:50 PM

I don't think people who say these things are either unenlightened or malinformed. The aesthetics of ballet do require explaining. It's not that hard to make a case for misogyny in ballet, which is the reason I posed those questions. The point shoe essentially hobbles a woman's foot. There's basically only a limited pallette of roles for a woman within it.

I think the most honest and respectful response is one that acknowledges people's reservations and tries to illuminate what's positive about it. Pointe work, to use the same example, doesn't allow a woman to do certain things (walk normally onstage or bear weight) but it does enable her to do certain things (balance or turn) beyond what is possible without it.

#18 Estelle

Estelle

    Platinum Circle

  • Foreign Correspondent
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,706 posts

Posted 31 May 2002 - 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Leigh Witchel
I don't think people who say these things are either unenlightened or malinformed.  The aesthetics of ballet do require explaining.  


I agree with that. The "why are women so thin" is a question I've heard several time from (well-meaning) people who had attended their first ballet; for example I remember attending a perfomance of a Lyon Conservatoire with a friend and her boyfriend, and his first reaction at the intermission was "but they are so sick! Are you sure they're healthy? It's worrying to watch them." while my friend and I, who were more experienced hadn't thought about it...

Also among your initial questions, I think that there are some which are related to the art form itself ("what makes ballet relevant?"), and some others with the organization of companies etc.
("why are there so few minorities?") and the answers are different. A bit like my field of research, mathematics: asking if mathematics are relevant/ useful is a criticism of mathematics itself, while asking why there is less than 20% of women among the French mathematicians is IMO a valid question (but the fact that some changes might help doesn't mean that mathematics itself is bad).

vagansmom, I agree that some people criticize some aspects of ballet while accepting the same things for art... That's one of the reasons of my question "Is Mozart relevant?". I think that, in France, ballet isn't generally as "high art" as much as classical music, painting or literature, and so people criticize it more easily...

Leigh, I agree also that it's good to insist on the positive aspects of a work. Because convincing people that works of the past don't have to be judged by today's standards isn't enough to make them feel like seeing it... For example, a few years ago I had tried to read some novels by the Frnech novelist Henry de Monfreid, but found them awfully racist and colonialist, I realized that part of it could be explained by the fact that it had been written in the 1930s, but the book was so unappealing to me that I didn't finish it; on the other hand one of my favorite novelists is the Hungarish author Gyula Krudy, though I do find some of his books misogynic, there is so much else to enjoy in his works that it's enough for me to appreciate them.

So for example when some people tell me "but the plots of ballet works are stupid, they're simplistic fairy tales", instead of trying to convince them that fairy tales can be great I try to convince them to see a non-fairy tale ballet, or to enjoy some other aspects of fairy-tale ballets like the musicality, the great technique of the dancers, etc. (hoping that, if they get attracted to ballet enough, they might reconsider their initial views).

#19 moira lawry

moira lawry

    New Member

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 31 May 2002 - 10:14 AM

Hello, I've been lurking, but when I saw this post, I had to register and post a reply. My daughter (and our whole family) has found a great sense of meaning from classical ballet. This is part of a reply that I wrote to TIME magazine last September when they had an article on home education. They used the example of a dyslexic dance student to 'prove' that home education did not work and that it was undemocratic.

> Dance, in particular, has a meaning to girls and young
> women. By adolescence, a growing girl knows that she
> is a second-class citizen. She knows she will never
> been seen as fully human because her body will always
> be objectified. Ballet, more than any other art, is a
> humanizing activity because it allows her to use the
> very object that ensnares her to create beauty. Our body is our voice.
>
> In ballet after ballet, the condition of women is
> symbolized. We are half-human/half-woman (Swan Lake,
> Chopiniana), poor and exploited by the rich (Giselle),
> enslaved (Le Corsaire, La Bayadere), young and under
> the thumb of older people (Romeo and Juliet), under
> the curse of an evil spell (Swan Lake, Sleeping
> Beauty, The Firebird), or a victim of men's whimsies
> (Coppelia, Manon), and in many ballets, love enslaves
> and liberates in turn, or women are in love and unable
> to do anything about it because of external
> circumstances. In every single case, our beauty and
> dignity, and our transforming ability to love even
> after death shows through. We are essentially human
> even in oppression. It is a wonderful message for
> growing girls, and one which they will not find in
> poetry or literature or art. The frailties of our personalities are
> cloaked in white tulle rather than blood and violence,
> as they are in Euripedes's plays, so the lessons are easier to take. I think of ballet
> as 'our' art.
>
> I should also like to dispute your claim that the
> function of a liberal education is to, "Expose people
> to fields they normally wouldn't investigate." The
> function of a liberal education is to be able to use
> one's mind, senses and feelings (and body in dance and
> drama) to explore what it means to be human, and thus
> be free to decide for oneself what it means to live a
> worthwhile life. The arts go one step further: they
> teach one to portray that meaning to others.
>
> It takes a long time to understand just one of the
> arts. Levels of meanings of works percolate
> only very slowly into our hearts, and ability to
> express meaning must be nurtured on its slow way. The
> knowledge of human frailty, our similarities, and
> understanding of why we are different are what one
> gets from the arts, and that is precisely what is
> needed to shape character in a democracy.
>


The pointe shoe can be compared to a steel-toe boot. One wears them for safety. Steel toe boots are horribly uncomfortable. One of my little toes was almost cut off by one once.

#20 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,753 posts

Posted 31 May 2002 - 10:40 AM

Moira, thank you so much for your thoughtful post, and for de-lurking. Hope to hear much more from you! Your points about the value of a liberal education are well taken.


It certainly is depressing to look back on all of those unhappy ladies of ballet, living and dying for love. I think it depends on whether you see the glass as half empty or half full. You could regard those heroines and those stories as relics of a bygone time, or as symbols of transcendence. Hearing from both sides increases our understanding (and certainly makes for, ahem, lively discussions)!

#21 Kathleen O'Connell

Kathleen O'Connell

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 799 posts

Posted 31 May 2002 - 04:14 PM

I can't figure out quite how to tie this thought to specific posts in the rest of the thread, so I'll just leap in ...

In terms of its perception by various "publics" (the audience for "mass entertainment," the academic world, etc.) ballet may be encumbered by the very visibility of its "oppressions": the toe shoes, the thinness of its artists, its distortions of the human body, etc. are all right out in front for everyone to see and are part of its presentation. The "oppressions" inherent in other art forms may be less apparent: when was the last time you worried about the toxic materials many visual artists are literally up to their elbows in day in and day out? (My mother-in-law is an artist: I've seen what's in her studio and I can't figure out why she doesn't glow in the dark.) Wander the halls of any music conservatory, and you'll note in short order that every string student sports an angry looking red bruise under his or her left chin from 3+ hours a day of practice. When a famous rock guitarist was asked to give his advice to young aspirants, his comment was: "practice until your fingers bleed." (He might have added: "and wear earplugs on stage to ensure you're not hearing impaired by 30.")

My point is, most (I would say all) art forms 1) require a considerable level of effort and discomfort on the part of their practitioners, 2) present a "distorted" (perhaps "heightened" would be a better term) version of human experience, and 3) rely extensively on conventions peculiar to the art form in question in order to do so. And I think that the depth of one's pleasure and appreciation depends on the extent of one's familiarity with (and comfort with) the conventions in addition to one's knowlege of the form's materials generally. (For example, many people who are knowlegeable about and enjoy classical music can't stand opera. In some cases this is because they just don't like the sound of a classically produced voice, which seems very "unnatural" to many people. In others it's because they aren't comfortable with opera's various conventions as a dramatic form -- e.g. its often overt and in some cases sensationalized emotionality. As a well-indoctrinated fan, I really don't "see" this latter convention "from the outside" so to speak -- but my husband does and it drives him nuts. But I digress ...)

I think that the conventions of ballet can be a barrier to its appreciation and make it easy to dismiss by someone whose appreciation of other art forms is quite sophisticated. The plot of a story ballet is really just an armature to support an expression of some facet of human existence via the materials of ballet as an art form -- but if one isn't familiar with ballet's conventions or materials, one might be inclined to think that a response to the story in and of itself was the point of the evening (as it is in a play, for instance) and one would be justifiably disappointed at the end of a long evening of swans in tutus and von Rothbart waving his cape. Even when distilled into a "plotless" ballet, some of these conventions can still be baffling: at the end of Ballo della Regina, a friend I'd dragged along turned to me and said "was that a coronation or a wedding?" I suggested that it was the celebration of a magnificent woman, but that didn't seem to help her sort things out. Her comment at the end of Opus 19 / The Dreamer was "well, I guess they ended up together after all." As an art form, ballet was simply opaque to her at an emotional level, if not formally (she picked up many of the formal characteristics right away, but didn't know what to make of them: "do they always try to look so light? Why?" she asked. It was a good question and I didn't really have an answer.)

I also think that the "serious" version of all art forms just isn't that easy to get into because it does take time and effort to master its conventions and to learn how to appreciate its subtleties. (Even a popular form like rock has a serious version with a tiny audience -- as any devotee of the Obscure Alternative Band You've Never Heard Of But Really Should Know Because They Are Taking The Guitar Anthem As Far As It Will Go And Subverting It At The Same Time And Besides They Can Really Play Not Like That Swill on K-Rock will tell you. And it will usually take at least three beers for them to get to the end of the lecture.) Anyone familiar with the prices of tickets to sporting events or pop concerts knows that mere expensiveness isn't necessarily a barrier to entry.

Enough! I don't think I even came close to addressing the central topic of the thread, so I think I better stop. And besides, I have to go practice now ;-) ...

(For the record, I can't sit through either "The Merchant of Venice" or "The Taming of the Shrew" without gritting my teeth and clenching my fists; my traversal of "Paradise Lost" was frequently interrupted by a savage hurl of the book to the other end of the room out of sheer irritation. "Incoming!' my roomate would bellow.)

#22 vagansmom

vagansmom

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts

Posted 31 May 2002 - 07:48 PM

Kathleen, Thank you for taking the time to write that post. You've really helped me to formulate a response to my well-meaning friends when they denigrate ballet. Your points about the "oppressions" of ballet being visible as compared to those of other arts may be very helpful.

#23 moira lawry

moira lawry

    New Member

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 01 June 2002 - 12:04 AM

There does seem to be an appeal in performing arts to depict foreign cultures. You see it from Shakespeare's Verona to La Bayadere. I don't mind misconceptions about cultures, as long as there aren't trivializations or tokenism or a paternalistic attitude.

It is quite nice, actually, to look far from one's own world and realize that whatever their class or culture, people still have the same struggles. They love and hate, their infants die, they have petty jealousies, they objectify other people--- just like we do!

There is a famous ink drawing of a rhinoceros by a European artist who had seen a rhino once. The drawing is full of inaccuracies. Obviously, the farther one is from a culture in space and time, the more innacurate the depiction. I could write about Americans and many Americans would protest that I was saying incorrect things about them because it has been two years since I've lived in America. On the other hand, my depictions of British people would probably be even more inaccurate because I've lived here only two years. I would probably make a mess of describing the neighborhood I live in, with its Muslim women draped head-to-toe and its punks in black leather, because I know nothing about those cultures/subcultures. I still do try to describe them.

Even people living in a culture, and native to that culture, make mistakes. A Greek friend objects to the dramatists' idea that ancient Athenians exposed the babies they didn't want. He says, "It is drama-- it is not supposed to be true." As it turns out, we have more evidence than just Athenian playwrights to show that the Athenians did expose their babies.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):